Pulse wave analysis with two tonometric devices: a comparison study.

Pulse wave analysis is a pivotal tool to estimate central haemodynamic parameters. Available commercial devices use applanation tonometry and have been validated against invasive catheterism. We previously observed differences on a radial second systolic peak (rSPB2) between two commonly used devices: SphygmoCor (AtCor, Australia) and PulsePen (DiaTecne, Italy). The aim of our study was to further quantify differences in radial and carotid signals from the two devices.We measured radial and carotid waveforms in 38 patients with minimal changes between systolic, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate.rSBP2, mean pressure, form factor and augmentation index were different with SphygmoCor providing lower values (mean differences: 2.2 ± 3.8 mmHg; 1.5 ± 1.7 mmHg; 3.2 ± 3.5%; 4.2 ± 8.4%, respectively). Carotid augmentation index and form factor were similar. However carotid systolic pressure (cSBP) from PulsePen was higher than cSBP from SphygmoCor (2.7 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). For both carotid and radial signals, harmonics moduli were similar across the spectrum with the exception of the 1st harmonic.PulsePen and SphygmoCor sensors are not equivalent and provide different wave shapes despite similar harmonics content with more discrepancy on radial derived parameters than on carotid derived parameters. Further studies are required to compare invasive pressure parameters to indices derived from these two devices.